She was treated by the psychiatric staffs of at least two city hospitals, and caseworkers visited her family home in Queens to provide further help. She was also arrested at least three times, according to the police, twice after violent confrontations....

There were ample warnings over the years concerning Ms. Menendez.

In 2003, according to the police, she attacked another stranger, Daniel Conlisk, a retired firefighter, as he took out his garbage in Queens.

“I was covered with blood,” Mr. Conlisk recalled on Sunday. “She was screaming the whole time.”

In the 70's some mental institutions were exposed as failures, abusive or neglecting. Rather than do the difficult but right thing (improve care) the states just shut 'em down. Add to that the weakening of the states ability to involuntarily institutionalize and you get little to no effective treatment. Typical liberal process: correctly identify a problem, propose and implement faulty government based response that feels good, then ignore results and any negative consequences.

If we are going to institutionalize the mentally ill, then we will have to accept that some minority of not-so-dangerously mentally ill will also be institutionalized. Is it worth that risk? I am not so sure.

If we are going to institutionalize the mentally ill, then we will have to accept that some minority of not-so-dangerously mentally ill will also be institutionalized. Is it worth that risk? I am not so sure.

That's a risk I can accept. The non-dangerous ones could use the help too.

"In the 70's some mental institutions were exposed as failures, abusive or neglecting. Rather than do the difficult but right thing (improve care) the states just shut 'em down."

Actually, the "exposure" was a movie called "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." The major tranquilizers had appeared and psychotic patients did much better if they took their meds. This allowed the politicians to close the hospitals while the patients were taking their meds. They stopped taking them after that but the hospitals were closed by then. That's a simplification but yours is too.

Michael,,I was thinking about an old Geraldo film I saw - but your points are well taken. Medicines and pop culture had their effects as well. In any case, the laws are too lax and the care inadequate.

Shutting down publicly funded long term residential care facilities for the mentally ill has meant that involuntary commitment procedures chiefly effect privately funded care facilities. Wouldn't want people put away for being rich and a trifle eccentric now, would we?

If we are going to institutionalize the mentally ill, then we will have to accept that some minority of not-so-dangerously mentally ill will also be institutionalized. Is it worth that risk? I am not so sure.

12/31/12 8:21 AM"

As a practical matter, the way to balance out the risk of confining too many non-dangerous mentally ill people and not enough dangerously mentally ill people is by controlling the budget of the mental health care agencies. With a limited budget they will have an incentive to keep only the most dangerous people against their will.

The problem is that bureaucracies will always tend to spend their budget hiring a lot of people to do nothing except make the supervisor look more important and meet EEOC hiring targets while letting dangerous people loose to harm innocent people in order to encourage larger budgets.

A lot of the solutions proposed are very expensive.More than America, in steep decline due to free trade, overextension of military empire, and too in debt from too much government - can afford.

A half million unionized "Armed Hero" government people for 132,000 schools?? Paid for by the Feds? Local property taxes? A need to register all guns so each could be assessed an annual tax to pay for Armed Heroes?

100s of billions to open looney bins and at the same time allow the committed tens of billions a year in free doctor assessments, endless appeals in courtrooms full of lawyers that will bill taxpayers???

How about simpler things, like putting a line on diagnosed nutball drivers licenses they are "Medically contraindicated for firearms and any explosives". ? If they recover, they can get have a doctor's note to get the line expunged from their next drivers licence. In the meantime, along with a requirement to alert police if the nut tries buying weapons or ammo, like the S Korean nutball at VT, Lanza and Holmes did, as they present their state drivers licence. You could stop a lot of the nexus between guns, violence, and the demented just by blocking their access to weaponry, full body armor, ammo, black powder, etc.

For the imminent threat types, lets drop the pretense of highly expensive doctors, nurses, a hospital....and put them in secure camps..with subcamps so the violent autistics can be separated from the young paranoid psychotics who have assaulted people who can be separated from violent senile dementeds and so on. Barbed wire, guards inside and outside the fence, counselors, and put the camps way out in the boonies.

"Long before Erika Menendez was charged with pushing a stranger to his death under an oncoming train at a Queens elevated station..."

Clearly then, as AprilApple notes, it is time, long past due, to ban these reckless assault subway trains and their high-capacity passenger platforms.

Urban America's clinging fixation with high-capacity assault subway trains is shameful. Worse yet, the government makes other Americans, who have no need or desire for these killing machines, subsidize them with their tax dollars.

==============I think a small percentage of the population thinks it incredibly witty to think they can derail the argument on a societal problem by proposing ridiculous laws. "Cleverly" they think, to draw attention to the "absurdity" of stopping smoking in the workplace or nutballs able to legally arm themselves to the teeth in full HIPAA privacy.

So when we were talking about getting ciggies out of work - the witty ways thought up dumb slippery slope argumments and absurd other bans. IF they take away my freedom!! to smoke where I want, the next thing they will take away my right to perfume!If you are going to ban smoking , then why not ladders, because employees are killed in falls!

The comeback, "why not end kids swimming?" or "Stop use of subways since people die there too" stuff presumes that there is no legitimate discussion about ways to stop the VT butcher, James Holmes, Adam Lanza...so they try and mock possible actions as ridiculous by extension.It isn't witty.It just signals such people have no interest in the debate on what we can do to stop the nutballs before they massacre people.

We can't institutionalize the seriously mentally ill with a documented history of aggression and violence and of refusing to take their meds, but we can charge them with a hate crime and, if convicted, impose the same sentences we would on the sane.

Clearly, if she had a personal social worker, state sponsored meds, a special school to go to, a work study program and maybe an Obamaphone to dial in to the crazy hotline, this wouldn't have happened.

Also, take people's guns away, tax them more, make it harder to find a job, and build huge eco-friendly towers with numbered 400 sq ft boxes to house them in, and equality will just about be reached.

Cedar -Considering how off the rails and irrational the gun debate is within the echo chamber Piers Morgan hysterical media, the point about banning trains was a simple one. I'm glad you took what I said to be worthy of a multi-paragraph long diatribe.

Inga: "It would create lots and lots of jobs, while housing the dangerously mentally ill, pump money back into the economy."

Laughable.

Government consumes resources. It does not create them.

If government spending money and "creating" jobs was a real "win/win", then the strongest economy in the world would have been the Soviet Union.

If you determine that society is served "well enough" by a government-run "service" that it "justifies", politically, the taking of resources from the productive sector in order to fund the service, then make that argument.

I anxiously await the rebound of that government-centric "enterprise" known as Greece to come roaring out of the economic doldrums any day now....

"How about a private sector solution? No government workers, no unions, no tax payer funded pensions, no lousy service coupled with abuse."

April, I'm with you.

But in this nascent national discussion about subway passenger safety, let's start with a common-sense solution we can all agree on: banning high-capacity passenger platforms.

No one really needs them - hell, all the seasoned subway strap-hangers I talk too say they're just for tourists, occasional riders and people insecure with tight spaces - and, as we saw, the create all kinds of unnecessary risks: litter, homeless people, panhandlers, used hypodermic needles, used condoms, and now murder. Multiple murders. How many more people must die before we ban high-capacity passenger platforms?

That, or pace "Inga," we can tax passengers to offset the costs of providing the extra security necessary to secure these reckless, socially irresponsible high-capacity passenger platforms.

Here's another semi-thought out solution. Place sane welfare recipients with insane people to monitor their behavior. Now the money paid to welfare is buying guards for the insane, who are a net drain on the economy.

Wyo Sis, do you think that it's a new idea to use welfare recipients to work in healthcare? Welfare to work programs dumped millions of W-2 recipients into CNA classes back in Clinton's day. I worked with many of these women in Milwaukee over the 30+ years I was a nurse. Some were very resentful and abusive to the patients, some were naturals excellent, hardworking caregivers.

PP - I know it's hard for leftists to understand, but creating jobs outside of government can happen if you create a fair government that works in the best interest of all citizens, not just the unionized government tax payer funded ones.

When the private sector thrives, there is more money for you leftists to cull. Somehow you think that strangling the goose that laid the golden egg is a good thing.

Just a tangential note: In my days in public health, people who had TB and didn't take their meds could, in fact, be quarantined and isolated--not easy because of legal hurdles--but my question to the communtariat: A person with TB who refuses to take their meds is every bit a public safety hazard as are the deranged such as the Menedez woman. TB just kills more slowly. Perhaps we as a society need to reset the pendulum.

I love how so many of the leftists here like to place words in my mouth. Why is that?

Ain't just you. A lot of leftists...like Pogo, Darrel, Scott, and Roger..play the same kind of games with me, so try not to take it too personally.

Liberals like them don't know how to have an actual convo, and instead spend most of their time barking just to make themselves heard. Nuttin' but a bunch of attention whores, the whole lefty lot of 'em.

Gov Walker is just as much of a slimy conman as Pres Obama is. (But not due to these claims) How anyone can strongly support one while constantly attacking the other can only be explained as blind partisanship and a desire to put Party ahead of Country.

But that ain't neither here-nor-there. I just had to point out the folly of the claim that gov't doesn't create jobs: Almost 2.5million men&women in uniform are laughing right now, but they don't know why.

Seriously, that is like saying "Corporations don't create jobs." After all, every penny that a business gets comes from someplace else...

PP--I take your point re government creation of jobs--in fact, given the growth of the public sector (ie, government created jobs) the governments at all levels have done wonderfully. I would submit that there is a major difference between a private sector (or if you prefer corporation) created jobs. The former jobs are paid for by tax payers who have no right to refuse to support such job creation--A private sector job is dependent on a free market and that, to me, is the difference in your view and mine. Or as Saint Milton (Friedman) might argue it comes down to an individual's choice in the market place.

Looks like April is another one of those liberals that put words in other people's mouth, 'cause it was never said nor implied corporations are evil.

I beleive that organized capital (ie, corporations) is just as needed as organized labor (ie, unions) when it comes to providing for a strong and steady economy. Please show me exactly what I've said that leads you to beleive otherwise.

Roger, I agree that there are some differences between public and private sector jobs. But I don't think that all of our gov't services should be ran just like a business. (Some of my more-libertarian-than-I pals have advocated in favor of a self-funded military and police dept, which scares the crap out of me!) and thus am perfectly ok with the gov't using public monies to create some jobs, 'cause there are some things/services that we-as-a-society should pay for as-a-whole rather than be ran by a for-profit entity.

And I apologize for lumping you in with the rest of those liberals. I mis-read what you said, and I shouldn't have tagged ya as a lefty like I did. Sorry 'bout that.

PP--apology accepted--I am basically a free market libertarian. And I do also believe that our constitution under the general welfare clause has a valid role in creating certain jobs that promote the general welfare. Our political debates, at the very fundamental level, are about where that line occurs. Anyway--appreciated your comments and am always willing to engage the arguments. Happy new year.

PP: "But that ain't neither here-nor-there. I just had to point out the folly of the claim that gov't doesn't create jobs: Almost 2.5million men&women in uniform are laughing right now, but they don't know why"

You are failing to address what the impact is to the private economy when government "removes" the resources necessary to fund those military jobs from the private sector.

This is an all too common error.

Now, do note what I am NOT saying. I am not saying that centrally run (government) military is not necessary.

I am saying that you cannot simply take one side of the balance sheet (Yeah, 2.5 million military jobs "created"!) without examining the other side of the balance sheet.

"We can't institutionalize the seriously mentally ill with a documented history of aggression and violence and of refusing to take their meds, but we can charge them with a hate crime and, if convicted, impose the same sentences we would on the sane.

Profoundly incoherent and deeply immoral, that."

What rcommal said.

Obviously, charging her with a hate crime is deeply immoral, but if that's the only way to confine her, then that's what will have to be done.

My first thought at reading this about her ongoing problems is that for her entire life, then, her family has been held hostage. Nothing they can really do to solve anything, can't lock the crazy relative in the attic.

I imagine that they're horrified and relieved, and horrified for feeling relieved.

Some adult people need care. Assuming that they're cared for better by families ignores the vast chasm between intentions and what is possible for ordinary people.

Re Synova's, drago's, pp's and my posts- it seems manifest to me that we can all agree that the requirement to maintain a military establishment is appropriate. I think Synova's comment extends that discussion into the impact of a military establishment on the general economy. I think her point is worth considering, but I would offer one comment in mitigation. The fact that the US does train its career soldiers in many longer term skills that will be applicable at some future time should be considered. I have no idea what the timeline is, but by producing some several million soldiers who, by the ends of their military careers, may well enhance the workforce when they retire should be considered.

I employ a simple crude rule to help determine which of governments functions are essential and which are dispensable. Preface the function with public and private and evaluate. Examples: public education vs private education > private is better. Now try army > public army vs private army. Not a hard call.

We continue to institutionalize mentally ill people. Unfortunately, they are in prison with criminals. I know people who work at the prison and that's what they say. Is that as humane as being confined to a mental health facility?